Amateur Pickleball Association

Amateur Pickleball Association Review

Amateur Pickleball Association: Critical Failures at the NOLA Amateur Open

Amateur Pickleball Association
Amateur Pickleball Association

Overview of the NOLA Amateur Open

The NOLA Amateur Open, run by the Amateur Pickleball Association alongside Fromuth Pickleball, charged a significant $75 entry fee, setting high expectations for professionalism and organization.

Operational Shortcomings and Player Discontent

The event was understaffed, managed by only two people responsible for every aspect from registration to scoring. This lack of personnel led to multiple logistical issues, putting immense pressure on the organizers and risking errors.

Many players felt the tournament was a profit-centric venture, prioritizing income over the quality of player experience.

Issues Raised by Participants and Spectators

Among the significant challenges faced by participants was the inadequate rest between matches. This was a critical oversight given the tournament’s demanding schedule. Players reported being rushed back to the courts almost immediately after their previous matches. Which not only compromised their physical well-being, but also their performance quality. This lack of downtime was particularly egregious given the tournament’s scoring format.

Typically, rally scoring in pickleball allows the leading player to “freeze” their score when they reach game point, meaning they can only win the match by scoring while serving. This rule helps to maintain a balance and tension in gameplay. However, at the NOLA Amateur Open, this fundamental aspect of rally scoring was altered. The tournament allowed the leading player to continue accruing points without the need to serve, thereby lengthening the game rather than speeding it up. This was a deviation from the expected and standard practice known to most players. This unexpected change in scoring rules not only confused participants but also lengthened the matches. This was contrary to what they had prepared for based on standard rally scoring conventions.

This scoring irregularity, combined with minimal rest periods, highlighted a lack of consideration for player safety. This deviation from the standard rules of pickleball, raised questions about the fairness and transparency of the tournament’s organization.

Further compounding the disorganization was the method of court assignments and match updates, shouted over the din of ongoing games without proper amplification or digital displays, often leading to confusion.

Specific Incidents of Concern

One particularly glaring issue at the NOLA Amateur Open was the inadequate response to spectator behavior. During key matches, including a pivotal gold medal doubles match, players were subjected to heckling from the audience. This disruption was not only distracting but also compromised the integrity of the game. Despite the obvious interference, the event organizers failed to take any action to address or prevent such disturbances. This reflects poorly on their ability to maintain a fair and respectful competitive environment.

This oversight in managing spectator conduct is a significant failure on the part of the Amateur Pickleball Association. It is the responsibility of the organizers to ensure that all matches are conducted in a manner that respects both players and the spirit of the sport. Ensuring a heckle-free environment is crucial, especially in matches of high importance, to maintain the quality and fairness of the competition.

Another significant incident involved a controversial line call in the singles gold medal match. With no referee initially present, an APA organizer intervened in a call, leading to further disputes and affecting the match’s outcome. This decision contradicted the expectation that players should make their own calls in such scenarios. If a referee was not assigned to the match from the beginning, the players call should have stood.

Player Safety and Fairness at Stake

The constant push for players to perform without adequate breaks and the handling of match disputes poorly reflect on the APA’s commitment to player welfare and tournament fairness.

Community Call to Action

As the costs of participating in pickleball tournaments continue to rise, the quality and management of these events must also improve. Unfortunately, players are increasingly finding that higher entry fees are not translating into better-organized or fairer competitions. The pickleball community must hold tournament organizers accountable, demanding better value and standards in the organization of events.

We urge all players who have participated in Amateur Pickleball Association events, particularly the NOLA Amateur Open, to share their experiences and feedback. It is important to communicate what went well and what failed to meet expectations. By spreading the word to others contemplating joining future APA events and providing feedback directly to the APA, the community can help foster necessary improvements.

To effectively bring about change and ensure that pickleball remains a fair and enjoyable sport, engaging in local and online discussions, forums, and feedback mechanisms is essential. Let’s work together to raise the standards. Let’s ensure that every player’s investment in time and money is respected and valued.

Similar Posts


  1. this article threw me off. tournament was run beautifully. games started on time and scheduling was well coordinated. fun times

  2. Posting anonymously for fear of being blackballed 😉 Most tournaments have the opposite problem. Too much time in between matches. But this tournament, especially the singles, the time between matches was too short. Finish a match to 21, walk off the court, then get right back on 2 minutes later. We needed time to breathe. Finding out when and where I played was a little disorganized, especially when I went to take a leak. Other than that It was okay.

  3. This was my first amateur pickleball association tournament. I’ve played a few at the same location, but this one was different. I played doubles, and there was some good competition. I agree that for $75, I think that they needed refs for the matches at the end. When people are playing medal matches there needs to be a ref. I did hear quite a few people complaining about different things. I am not sure if I would play in their tournament again. It seemed very rushed.

  4. I agree. I have never played in a singles tournament that had the singles players playing back to back matches. And the matches were to 21, wow.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *